The case and context for atmospheric methane as an exoplanet biosignature

Confidence of Life Detection: The Problem of Unconceived Alternatives

Potential biosignatures that offer the promise of extraterrestrial life (past or present) are to be expected in the coming years and decades, whether from within our own solar system, from an exoplanet atmosphere, or otherwise. With each such potential biosignature, the degree of our uncertainty will be the first question asked. Have we really identified extraterrestrial life? How sure are we? This paper considers the problem of unconceived alternative explanations. We stress that articulating our uncertainty requires an assessment of the extent to which we have explored the relevant possibility space. It is argued that, for most conceivable potential biosignatures, we currently have not explored the relevant possibility space very thoroughly at all. Not only does this severely limit the circumstances in which we could reasonably be confident in our detection of extraterrestrial life, it also poses a significant challenge to any attempt to quantify our degree of uncertainty. The discussion leads us to the following recommendation: when it comes specifically to an extraterrestrial life-detection claim, the astrobiology community should follow the uncertainty assessment approach adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Is There Such a Thing as a Biosignature?

The concept of a biosignature is widely used in astrobiology to suggest a link between some observation and a biological cause, given some context. The term itself has been defined and used in several ways in different parts of the scientific community involved in the search for past or present life on Earth and beyond. With the ongoing acceleration in the search for life in distant time and/or deep space, there is a need for clarity and accuracy in the formulation and reporting of claims. Here, we critically review the biosignature concept(s) and the associated nomenclature in light of several problems and ambiguities emphasized by recent works. One worry is that these terms and concepts may imply greater certainty than is usually justified by a rational interpretation of the data. A related worry is that terms such as "biosignature" may be inherently misleading, for example, because the divide between life and non-life-and their observable effects-is fuzzy. Another worry is that different parts of the multidisciplinary community may use non-equivalent or conflicting definitions and conceptions, leading to avoidable confusion. This review leads us to identify a number of pitfalls and to suggest how they can be circumvented. In general, we conclude that astrobiologists should exercise particular caution in deciding whether and how to use the concept of biosignature when thinking and communicating about habitability or life. Concepts and terms should be selected carefully and defined explicitly where appropriate. This would improve clarity and accuracy in the formulation of claims and subsequent technical and public communication about some of the most profound and important questions in science and society. With this objective in mind, we provide a checklist of questions that scientists and other interested parties should ask when assessing any reported detection of a "biosignature" to better understand exactly what is being claimed.

Perfect absorption based on a ceramic anapole metamaterial

Metamaterials, from concept to application level, is currently a high-trending topic. Due to the strict requirements of the simultaneous reasonable structural design and stability of materials, the construction of a high-performance metamaterial for extreme environments is still difficult. Here, combining metamaterial design with materials optimization, we propose a completely different strategy and synthesize a type of monomeric ceramic meta-atom to construct metamaterials. Based on a geometric design with multiple degrees of freedom and dielectric properties, hybrid anapole modes with impedance matching can be produced, experimentally inducing nearly perfect absorption with high temperature stability (high tolerable temperature of approximately 1300 °C, with almost zero temperature drift) in microwave/millimeter-wave bands. We surpass the oxidation temperature limitation of 800 °C in conventional plasmonic absorbers, and provide an unprecedented direction for the further development of integrated high-performance metamaterial wireless sensors responding to extreme environmental scenarios, which will also lead to a new direction of specific ceramic research toward device physics.

Synergies Between Venus & Exoplanetary Observations: Venus and Its Extrasolar Siblings

Here we examine how our knowledge of present day Venus can inform terrestrial exoplanetary science and how exoplanetary science can inform our study of Venus. In a superficial way the contrasts in knowledge appear stark. We have been looking at Venus for millennia and studying it via telescopic observations for centuries. Spacecraft observations began with Mariner 2 in 1962 when we confirmed that Venus was a hothouse planet, rather than the tropical paradise science fiction pictured. As long as our level of exploration and understanding of Venus remains far below that of Mars, major questions will endure. On the other hand, exoplanetary science has grown leaps and bounds since the discovery of Pegasus 51b in 1995, not too long after the golden years of Venus spacecraft missions came to an end with the Magellan Mission in 1994. Multi-million to billion dollar/euro exoplanet focused spacecraft missions such as JWST, and its successors will be flown in the coming decades. At the same time, excitement about Venus exploration is blooming again with a number of confirmed and proposed missions in the coming decades from India, Russia, Japan, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Here we review what is known and what we may discover tomorrow in complementary studies of Venus and its exoplanetary cousins.